Most of the photos are too risque to feature on MailOnline, the bare legs and stomachs of the girls deeming them inappropriate for publication.

Too much for The Mail? Really?

That is saying a lot.

I am going to bet the website and catalog is visited more by pervs than parents.

Maybe that is what they are shooting for.

----

'It's entirely inappropriate': Fashion industry outraged after French label launches lingerie for girls as young as FOUR

By Daisy Dumas

Last updated at 1:51 PM on 17th August 2011

In a move that has shocked fashion onlookers, scantily-clad young girls wearing make-up and sporting voluminous up-dos are promoting a new range of lingerie that is targetted at girls as young as four years old.

Combining lingerie and lounge wear to form 'loungerie,' the Jours Après Lunes line for four to 12-year-olds features a range of panties, bras, camisoles and T-shirts with lace edges, ribboned bow detailing and nautical stripes.

The shots feature young girls in poses and styling that seem far too premature for their ages.

__________________"Now, mark my words. So long as we are a young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind us no longer" - Alexander Hamilton about the US Constitution.

The sexualization of children just keeps slowly moving forward. What was unthinkable a couple decades ago is the norm now. If the trend continues, sexy lingerie for four year olds will be the norm, and the edge of the envelop will be.... where? Child porn on sale at the local video store? NAMBLA an accepted lobbying organization for 'ped rights'? It would not surprise me a bit.

What i don't like about this discussion is that it puts the focus on how the child is dressed. While women demand the right to walk around however they wish without this giving men any right to sexually offend them, here obviously children are to be dressed so grownups can't see them as a sexual object.

Dressing someone up so nothing looks sexual is the logic behind the arabs confining their women in scarfs and burkhas. They see men as so weak that the men cannot do ther than sexually offend the sexy dressed women.

In the civilized cultures men are expected to behave themselves and not to offend women sexually. We also expect grownups to do NOTHING sexually with a child.

Here in Germany it is quite common to let children swim nude. This in no way has any kind of sexual aspect.

Daughters always wanted to walk around like mommy. If Mommy walks around like Madonna, her little princess also wants to walk around like that. Should she not be allowed?

I prefer to live in a society where kids can walk around how they like and it is the grownups responsibility to keep sex away from children. I don't like the Burkha mentality, neither for women nor for children, as this shifts the responsibility for sexual offence away from the offender to the victim.

If I see a young girl all dressed up i consider it cute or funny. Only when a woman is dressed do I see it under a sexual aspect. So i don't think kids need any special clothing, I think some grownups need special housing (=jail).

I'm with glock. Look I think most of us have seen little girls playing dress up. They borrow Mommy's clothing & shoes - what she'll let them use! - other accessories & 'makeup'. I know some moms who let their little girls use makeup they no longer use or buy them a tiny selection of makeup for such play times.

When you look at the finished product, what you clearly see is little girls playing grownup. The clothing is too large, they totter around in shoes twice the size of their feet & the makeup is garish, heavily & badly applied & looks clownish. Here's just one example of what I mean:

What we're speaking of here is quite different. These girls didn't dress themselves. They spent a long time in hair & makeup - it can be over two hours for such shoots - & were styled by ADULTS in a very adult fashion. They're not styled to look like little kids playing dressup, they're styled to look like adult women old enough to indulge in sexual behaviour.

Such clothing choices, hair & makeup is appropriate in ADULT women, not children. I look at the photo I yanked off Google & think it's cute - it's a tot doing what little kids do - imitative play. The lingerie ad, the young model - my reaction is very different. I see young girls dressed in a way that makes me uneasy - my core tells me this is WRONG.

__________________"Most of what you did with Ebola was go to Africa and count corpses after the fact." - CJ Peters

Hasn't this basically just evolved over time? Its not going to stop, yet it may evolve further! Right now the hot commodity is litle kids as prostitutes. Maybe not so much in this country but definately overseas. The fast pace of television, movies and the internet have all combined to make this world a disgustingly filthy place for a child.I'm thinking if the demand for sexy looking girls wasn't there, it wouldn't be. My own 3rd generation nieces(9-14) all blatently talk sex, try to look sexy, and gol darnit they are sexy. I'd like to smack em upside the head but they would prolly like it

These girls didn't dress themselves. They spent a long time in hair & makeup - it can be over two hours for such shoots - & were styled by ADULTS in a very adult fashion. They're not styled to look like little kids playing dressup, they're styled to look like adult women old enough to indulge in sexual behaviour.

I've been involved in professional modelling on and off for decades. The 10year old model, Thy Blondeau, spent about 2 hours having her hair done up in that severe 1930's style bun top. She spent an additional almost 2 hours having her makeup applied--this included foundation, lipgloss, eyeliner, mascara and bright red fingernail polish. All designed to look like a 20year old woman on the prowl. She was fitted for a diamond ring, diamond earings, and a diamond studded anklet.

Nothing about the Vogue spread with Blondeau smacks of children playing dress-up. She was tarted up by a professional modelling team, and made to look precisely like a woman expressing sexuality.

Want to see how things have changed? These are covers with Brooke Shields at 12, taken in 1978:

I remember even those ads creating contraversy... a lot of jealous cats because at 12 & 13 she LOOKED sexy, naturally. If you look at her clothing - save for the first shot where she's wearing a camisole, she's fully covered up. Of course she has makeup on & I'll bet it took more than a few minutes to achieve that natural look. Her look is age appropriate, fresh faced, there's no over the top hairstyle or jewelery. She's styled in a way I'd have no issues with - were she my child. She was simply a beautiful child & if you've seen her lately, she grew up to be a stunning woman.

Maybe these babies in the lingerie ads, baby beauty pageants etc. will grow up to be physically lovely young women, maybe not. But surely at their very young age, there's plenty of time for that without it being pushed by adults looking to create contraversy.

__________________"Most of what you did with Ebola was go to Africa and count corpses after the fact." - CJ Peters

Exactly. And in my view, even Shields' shot with the camisole is age-appropriate. It's meant to convey a sense of innocence and unsophistication, not at all sexuality. Rather, the shot is supposed to give a sense of youth and hope, in an outfit that might be worn by a typical 12/13 yr old at the time.

When dd was two, I let her run around on 100+ days with the two year old boy next door. It was hot, they were naked, so what. can you imagine how hot a pampers can get on a triple digit day?!? they played in an inflatable pool and I even sacrificed a section of the flower bed for "mud pies." Nothing inappropriate happened, I know, I was watching them but that still didn't prevent the old crone form next door from complaining that I let my 2 year-old run around naked. Despite Freud, not everything is sexual. But, maybe because of Freud, everything Can be sexual? At two, there was nothing sexual about my daughter. At fifteen? Geez, I wish she were two again . . .

Naked infants playing are not sexual (to normal people, anyways). But when children are made into sex objects, and that kind of thing is broadcast throughout our society, it does not just harm the child. It changes the way adults think about children on a subconscious level. That is the really dangerous part; propagandizing and promoting pedophilia. The media is a powerful and insidious tool. Misusing it in this way is positively insane.

But what I really was after is the focus shift from the offender to the object/victim. A grownup has to know a child is not available for Sex, period. No matter how they dress. The way a child looks or acts, is no reason or excuse for offense.

And seeing a "sexy" dressed little girl makes me on no way want sex with her, just like reading gun magazines doesn't make me violent.

During the late 60s and early 70s, all of us girls ran around topless on hot days, up to age 5,6, or 7. Was it because our parents were sexually revolutionized hippies? Nope, they were all pre-boomers...straight-laced children of WW2. We were also put in baths with opposite sexed siblings, cousins, etc. But none of us were thinking about sex, we were CHILDREN. Our parents didn't put tassles on our nipples, they didn't buy us G strings, they didn't cover us in professional makeup...they cut our hair using BOWLS, fer chrissakes! Why? Because we were CHILDREN! Dressing a child up to look like a woman on looking to hook up is not too many steps from pedophilia, IMO. That crap shouldn't start until the teen years, when they ARE thinking about sex, and learning how to attract and interact with the opposite sex, for natural purposes of procreation. And guess what? They don't think about it until they have the hormones TELLING them to, not because Mom or Dad is trying to make them Lolitas. Doing it before they want to do it on their own is unnatural, and that is what most of us see and hate. Let children be children, teens be teens, and adults be adults.

If you really want to see how young girls play dress up without sexual influence, I'll dig out a pic of my girls at about 3 & 6. You'll wonder what freakin' planet they're from.

Indeed, one of the symptoms of child abuse is a child at 5, 6 or 7 who IS aware of sexual thoughts. It's unnatural, and if you see a child at that age making sexual comments or suggestions or acting out, it is almost always the result of exposure to an adult or older child who has done something sexually innappropriate to or in view of that child.

In the natural state, children that age can run around naked on a hot day and swim in a pond, and bathe with their cousins, and it's not sexualizing anything or anybody. The jean-benet ramsey (and I daresay Thy Blondeau) ads in which children are shot in seductive poses with seductive inappropriate clothing RUINS EVERYTHING. Everything good and innocent about childhood. It's so damn unnecessary. And destructive.